Despite recent issues with the Chevrolet Volt's battery, GM expects increased Volt sales for November and a recent survey found that Volt customers are satisfied. A GOP lawmaker may, however, ruin EV success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit

General Motors Co. may have hit a few speed bumps this year with the Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV's battery-related incidents, but things seem to be looking up with an expected increase in November Volt sales and a recent survey that confirmed Volt customer satisfaction.

The Chevrolet Volt had its best-ever sales month in October 2011, but according to GM Spokesman Jim Cain, November Volt sales are expected to surpass the previous month.

In October, GM sold 1,108 Volts, which was the first time it had outsold the Nissan Leaf EV since April. For the year through October, GM sold a total of 5,003 Volts.

Experts say that it is now very unlikely that GM will meet its sales goal of 10,000 Volts sold in 2011, but GM predicts increased sales in November over the month of October. The final sales figures for November have not yet been released.

Perhaps the reason for increased sales expectations is Volt customer satisfaction. According to a recent survey by Consumer Reports, Chevrolet Volt owners "love their cars."

The Consumer Reports survey, which was released Thursday, is based on over 314,000 opinions of 2009-2012 model year vehicles. The survey found that 93 percent of Volt owners who participated said they'd buy the EV again.

However, the survey was conducted only a few months after the Volt hit showrooms, and mainly consisted of early buyers and enthusiasts. The survey was also taken before the formal investigation of Volt/lithium battery safety began.

Earlier this year, the Volt underwent a series of tests at a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) facility in Wisconsin. Three weeks after a side-impact crash test on May 12, the Volt went up in flames while parked at the facility, catching nearby vehicles on fire.

This sparked a NHTSA investigation, where three more Volts were tested November 16, 17 and 18. One battery had normal results while another emitted sparks and smoke, and the third caught on fire one week later. The NHTSA is now conducting a formal investigation of the vehicle's safety.

The Volt may be seeing the upside of a nasty situation for now with a potential sales increase and customer satisfaction, but one GOP lawmaker is looking to throw a wrench in the EV industry's success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) told Congress Wednesday that he wants the $7,500 tax credit for EVs to cease because he says electric vehicles have not met desired goals and the tax credit only benefits the wealthy. He specifically noted that the annual income of Volt owners is $175,000.

"[The Volt] has become the poster child of President Obama's failed green agenda," said Kelly. "Like many green initiatives promoted by this administration and bankrolled by the American taxpayer, the electric car is better in theory than in practice; has limited consumer demand; is heavily subsidized; and has fallen short of reaching targeted goals. Despite the fact that the federal government has no business subsidizing a product that a manufacturer could just as easily promote through rebates and other buyer incentives, the tax subsidies are largely going to the affluent few who can actually afford to buy an electric car, which costs anywhere between $40,000 and $97,000."

Kelly's "like many other green initiatives promoted by this administration" comment was more than likely referring to this year's Solyndra disaster, where the U.S. government loaned solar panel company Solyndra $535 million in 2009 despite warnings that the company would go bankrupt. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy on September 6, 2011.

No, they won't. It was hard enough to get Republicans to keep the current tax rates for working people, and even then the House R's aren't on board. Yet, they're willing to go to the mat to lower the riches' tax rates. And someone I know the R's that come here will be all over me despite the fact not a single one of them will benefit from the nonsense the R's are pulling with tax policy.

Your mentality leads to Greece. Tax rates could go to 100% for people making over 250k a year and it likely wouldn't close the deficit this fiscal year. Thats assuming they stayed, which real world experience shows that the rich can be footloose, so we'd never get that 100%. Not to mention the open question of how an economy can invest to create jobs without people with money.

The sooner we accept the "working people" are either receiving too much government support and/or aren't paying in enough, the more likely the US is to avoid the fate of so much of Europe.

Greece is in trouble because tax evasion spread from the rich to the middle class. Many rules being forced upon Greece in their agreements deal with proper tax collection. The national sales tax created a huge underground economy.

It's true government workers used to have many benefits, but their civil service pay structure is much like what the US had decades ago, lots of benefits and puny salaries.

Greece is also overwhelmed with illegal aliens, Albanians cross the border just like Mexicans, and the crime that comes with them (not "it" R77). Jobs are also outsourced to Eastern Europe. Now factor in a small revenue base, total the size of a large city, along with military spending and other national needs, and what outcome would one expect? Oh, did we miss the fact that the national economy was heavily dependent on tourism? And how's tourism been since Wall St collapsed the global economy?

Probably because you would scream and blame Republicans if gas prices rose even higher and thereby prices on anything that requires transportation (everything). Of course, you blame them for tax breaks on oil anyway, so I guess the common denominator is that you plan to blame Republicans for all problems. Don't worry, you aren't alone, most people in the world are not open minded enough to take the good with the bad and try to reserve judgment until all the facts become evident. It eventually becomes a kneejerk reaction to blame your political opposite for all of your perceived problems.

Dear Sir,research this independantly. The oil tax "breaks" are a misnomer. The word is a inaccurate. What really happens is the companies are told that their taxes are, example 30%, then the Govt comes back pretending they worked hard at bringing that 30% down to 20%. They the Govt folks turn around to the public (along with a willing media) and tell them, "hey, those fat cats are getting a 10% tax break". Then the govt also turns around and takes nearly a dollar of taxes (state & Fed)from EACH GALLON sold for $3.70!!! The Govt makes money like bandits and you blame the oil companies!

What gets me is a republican pretending to care about someone other than the rich, and attacking a tax credit, his party's favorite voter bribe, supposedly because the common folk don't benefit from it. In reality, I think he's just in the pocket of industries that are threatened by electric cars. That, and this tax credit is too green for his liking. :)

I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or what. Those early adopters should pay the $40,000 instead of the govt forcing us ALL to be early adopters, whether we end up owning the car or not. We all bought them in part with our tax dollars but only those that plunk down the $30,000+ end up owning them.

Personally, I think if the Volt was the same cost as its ICE-only counterpart, it would be a great idea. However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic (meaning if the decision was purely economic, it's a bad decision to buy a Volt). The only reason someone would buy it would be to wear it as a "green" badge of honor. If you desire to wear that badge, by all means, buy a Volt. But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.

quote: Personally, I think if the Volt was the same cost as its ICE-only counterpart, it would be a great idea.

You expect a car with an electric drive and ICE to be the same price as one with just an ICE? That's not realistic.

quote: But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.

Subsidizing new technology allows it to gain a foothold in the market, where economies of scale gradually take over and make the technology self sustainable. At this point, everyone is better off.

quote: However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic

The Volt is more luxurious than a typical $25k compact, but even in your example, the payback period is 7.5 years, maybe 10 years with the cost of money. Not unreasonable.

It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti. Obviously buying a car is an emotional decision, so its not far to judge the Volt only on it's economic payback period just because it has one.

Also, it'd be naive to assume gas prices won't rise again.

The Volt isn't perfect. But I defend it because for once, an American company has the most advanced technology in the market and it works - in too many industries, and for too long in the automotive industry, the American companies have always been a step behind. It's refreshing, and I hope it succeeds. We're falling behind in the global economy, and innovation is the only way we can get back on top.

Every industry has R&D costs with developing and marketing a new product. The auto industry is a multi-billion dollar industry (GM alone received a $50 billion bailout). They are the ones who should be footing the bill for developing new technology, not the taxpayer. There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to hand over money to multi-billion dollar companies.

quote: The Volt is more luxurious than a typical $25k compact, but even in your example, the payback period is 7.5 years, maybe 10 years with the cost of money. Not unreasonable.

Not realistic either. I don't expect that many people who bought this car are using it for a long daily commute so extend that time out to 10 to 15 years. Most people who I know in CA that want one only have about a 5 mile drive to work and at that rate it would be much longer.

quote: It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti.

Granted, I wouldn't do that either, but back to the point, I also would not expect Uncle Sam to give buyers of a Infiniti or Land Cruiser a kickback either.

Granted, it was cheaper under previous administrations. But I see that as an indictment of the current Bozo in the White House, who has gone out of his way to stifle exploration and stoke uncertainty in the industry.

quote: You expect a car with an electric drive and ICE to be the same price as one with just an ICE? That's not realistic.

Actually I couldn't care less what it costs. If it's too expensive (it is) then I'll just get something else.

quote: It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti. Obviously buying a car is an emotional decision , so its not far to judge the Volt only on it's economic payback period just because it has one.

I don't see it that way. Perhaps if I had more cash than I knew what to do with then it would be an emotional decision. Or maybe if I just cared more about cars (I'm not a car guy). No, for me, it's about getting from point A to point B safely and cost-effectively. Dropping 30 or 40k on a new vehicle - any vehicle - just isn't a realistic option in my mind, when I can get my family and my stuff back and forth for so much less with a decent used vehicle. I'm glad so many other people are willing to take that 50% drop in value in the first several years of owning a new car, though.

quote: However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic (meaning if the decision was purely economic, it's a bad decision to buy a Volt). The only reason someone would buy it would be to wear it as a "green" badge of honor. If you desire to wear that badge, by all means, buy a Volt. But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.

So let me get this straight, you don't think there should be an incentive, but you outright admit that nobody is going to buy the car (outside of those wanting to wear the green badge) if it costs 40K.

We are talking about technology that needs to supplant another with over 100 years of technological (let alone manufacturing) improvements. Unless you want to wait another 50 years, some kind of incentive has to be offered.

Not saying its justified (if the power comes from the grid you are still paying for it, not sure if any kind of cost benefit has been performed) but you are clearly missing the point of why it was implemented in the first place.

Many of the technological improvements you use everyday, could have been years away if not for government subsidy, just remember that...

All of this said, why is it being offered now? I'm pretty sure GM is producing as many Volt's as they can, and would sell for 40k to the normal early adopters just as easily without the incentive. It should be removed until the incentive will actually help drive sales. i.e Until manufacturers increase production and start having trouble moving these vehicles at 40k, until then mass adoption is not really under way anyways.

quote: So let me get this straight, you don't think there should be an incentive, but you outright admit that nobody is going to buy the car (outside of those wanting to wear the green badge) if it costs 40K.

Well, as others who defend the tax credit here have pointed out, the Volt is considered a "luxury" car. So to answer your question, NO, I absolutely do not think the govt should be handing out tax incentives for luxury items.

so question for you. when ICE cars were just starting to suplant the standard for the day in 1880's (horses and horse draw carrage), did the government substidize Americans to buy these new devices? Anwser: NO NO and NO.

It was only until 1913 when Ford mastered the assymbly line did the cost of cars come down to the point where it was economical for the average person to own.

**************

How about computers. In the 1970's, when personal computers were just coming about. did the federal government substidize the industry in order to make computers take off?

Answer: NO NO and NO

****************

How about the other great inventions of the 1900's? How many of these devices had to recieve government assistance in order to take off.

Answer: VERY FEW to NONE

*******************

The final anwser to this question is that government programs like the Volt incentinves unfairly asks every tax paying American to take on the risk for a new product.

all of the risk for the Volt should be GM and it's share holders. American tax payers should not be flipping the bill.

quote: Many of the technological improvements you use everyday, could have been years away if not for government subsidy, just remember that...

I think you're just saying that because it sounds good. I doubt you have any idea if this is true or not. Please give me a list of consumer products that we use that were helped to the market because of a tax credit.

How about research from Universities and such that receive government to create new technologies such as medicine? A lot of medical advances happen through government loans and grants to researchers and also to tax breaks for the companies for developing medications and such.

It really hurts when people say "Republicans only care about the rich.". I'm a Republican and I'm not rich. I also care about many other things.

It's pretty Goddamned obvious that the only party even trying to be fiscally responsible is the Republicans lately. We simply CANNOT afford to give $7,000+ dollars of money we DO NOT HAVE so people can buy a luxury item. Yes, sorry folks, but the Volt is a LUXURY at this point. If you can afford a $40,000 vehicle, you sure as HELL don't need help from the taxpayers!!

It's time to stop this petty partisan bickering and at least come to grips with the reality of the situation we're in. This isn't Health Care or military spending or unemployment insurance. This is a CAR. The Government has absolutely NO business trying to sway the market in favor of one technology over the other, using funds that don't really exist because it's debt from the Treasury, so people that don't even need financial assistance can buy a goddamn car.

I'd rate you up more, if I could. At this point, it's irresponsible to be handing out money like this. If you didn't have a massive debt, then maybe but not now. We have more important things to take care of.

quote: We have to continue to fund new technologies or we are doomed to go backward.

You mean follow us into bankruptcy like Greece? Where half a continent has to bail us out with no guarantees that we won't go under anyways? No thanks. Use the money to pay off debt. We can do this stuff later. No wonder we're in this hole.

Sure Republicans care about more than giving the rich as much money as possible at the expense of everyone else. Below is a list of what I see as their priorities from what they say and how they vote.

1. Voting against anything that would make President Obama look good.2. Reducing the taxes on the rich at the expense of others3. Reducing the taxes on corporations at the expense of everyone but the rich.4. No same-sex marriage.5. Taking away women's rights (abortion) to suit their narrow minded religious views.6. Making sure our homosexual soldiers don't have the same rights as heterosexual soldiers7. Repealing "Obamacare" with NO replacement bill all the while defending Medicare which is basically the same thing8. Reducing any services for the poor and middle class to pay for tax breaks for the rich9. Reducing any services for the poor and middle class to pay for tax breaks for very profitable corporations.10. Talk about spending cuts but at the same time give unrealistic and unfair ways to get them (no tax increases for the rich but they are more than fine about reducing services for the poor)

Oh, and a Republican can say all they want about being "fiscally responsible" but until they agree to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, they might as well be talking about unicorns and fairies. The Democrats have put many spending cuts on the table, even those that may hurt the poor and middle class to try to be fair and meet the Republicans half way. Too bad that the Republicans spit on the Democrats when they did reach out to them.

2) The "rich" pay 70% of all the taxes (that's the top 25% for you Obama voters). The bottom 50% of income earners pay ZERO .

3) Corporate America's taxes are amongst the highest in the nation. And they do get tax breaks for things like offering non-Constitutionally mandated benefits like maternity leave, continuing education, health care plans, life insurance plans, worker's comp, and retirement plans (ie: they don't HAVE to offer those benefits).

4) Don't care either way about that.

5) See above.'

6) Ask Bill Clinton about who signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

7) Obamacare is a TRAMPLING of the Constitution, and should be left to the STATES, NOT the federal government. NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should EVER mandate a FORCED CONTRACT.

8) Too mindlessly repetitive to respond to.

9) See above.

10) You can lay off the taxes for the rich nonsense, liberal zombiecrat.

Oh, name ONE spending cut Democrats put on the table in the last head-to-head. ONE! Please include the fact that Harry Reid's Senate run by Democrats haven't passed one single budget in THREE YEARS.

2) The "rich" pay 70% of all the taxes (that's the top 25% for you Obama voters). The bottom 50% of income earners pay ZERO .

Another lie. Poor people pay less in payroll taxes because they has less pay. Makes sense. However, they pay the same amount in other taxes as anyone else.

3) Corporate America's taxes are amongst the highest in the nation. And they do get tax breaks for things like offering non-Constitutionally mandated benefits like maternity leave, continuing education, health care plans, life insurance plans, worker's comp, and retirement plans (ie: they don't HAVE to offer those benefits).

quote: Poor people pay less in payroll taxes because they has less pay.

The typical response of you liberal Dems. Payroll taxes are not IRS income taxes. They are taxes for future BENEFITS (most of which are about broke like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid). And the other consumption-based taxes like gas taxes, food taxes, booze taxes, cigarette taxes are irrelevant when talking about "tax breaks for the rich" that you people keep bringing up.

We get tax breaks from the IRS, not the local gas station and liquor store. If you find it unfair that a higher % of someone's payroll tax with 6% of income going to SS is unfair, then lobby your representatives to introduce a bill lowering that rate based on income. Ditto for all the other consumption-based taxes.

top 20% of income earners own 85% of the wealth in America. So the fact that they pay 88% of income taxes seems fair. But they do not pay 88% of all taxes which is unfair. I'm easily one of them in the top bracket. I don't whine and moan because I know I have it better than most.

The Tax Foundation reports AGI numbers, not actual taxable amounts. Schedule A is on page 2, AGI is on the bottom pf page 1, and the taxable amount occurs after subtracting the amount on the bottom of Schedule A. Now why do they do that? Because the truth would hurt their claims?

Of course they always overlook the individuals who have the largest numbers on Schedule D and where the tax tables get adjust downward accordingly. And who has the largest numbers on Schedule D? Would just happen to be the rich? You tell us.

quote: The Tax Foundation's annual study that calculate Tax Freedom Days in the United States has been criticized by other think tanks, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)[25] and Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ),[26] citing repeated "methodological errors" and "reliance on early projections without hard data." CBPP has also criticized other reports by the Tax Foundation,[27][28][29][30][31] and in turn the Tax Foundation has responded or criticized CBPP reports.[32][33][34][35][36] The two groups have some areas of agreement, such as opposition to most tax expenditures[37] and sales tax holidays.

quote: In 2008, Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times blog that the Tax Foundation was "not a reliable source" in response to a report by the Tax Foundation comparing corporate tax rates in the United States to those in other countries.[40] In 2011, Krugman accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.

A "think tank" is double speak for a propaganda outfit, regardless of party. But hey the emperor's loyal subject continue to insist they see his new clothes.

Typical of someone like you; I point out hard facts and straight numbers to you. What do you respond with ? An opinion piece. LOL

The typical response of you liberal Dems. Payroll taxes are not IRS income taxes. They are taxes for future BENEFITS (most of which are about broke like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid). And the other consumption-based taxes like gas taxes, food taxes, booze taxes, cigarette taxes are irrelevant when talking about "tax breaks for the rich" that you people keep bringing up.

What the hell are you talking about? Payroll taxes are simply those taxes that employers are required to withhold; this includes income taxes. Funny NOW how republicans are trying to block tax cuts for middle class workers.

Not as a percentage of GDP:

Irrelevant. We're talking about tax RATES and you know it. This is typical people like you to pull nonsense from you @ss when you can't refute the point, itself. If I own a company, I don't care how my tax rate relates to GDP; all I care about is the rate at which I'm being taxed.

quote: It's pretty Goddamned obvious that the only party even trying to be fiscally responsible is the Republicans lately.

I agree with everything in your post, except this. And extremely so. I'm not talking about general republican voters, but the republican representatives in the house and senate. In the past 2 years they've shown so little responsibility they actually got america's credit rating downgraded! that was as much a republican failure as it was a democratic failure.

Have you seen tea party economic proposals? Draconian cuts to >discretionary< spending, but no cuts what so ever to mandatory spending. So they leave social security alone just as much as the democrats, but they will completly gut education to keep up their image of "fiscal responsibility" as well.

Not that the general republican proposals make any sense. Taxes for EVERYBODY are the lowest they've been in 80+ years, and they refuse to raise taxes? You call that responsible?

The republican party does only care for the rich, or else cares only about doing the opposite of what democrats do. And the democrats only care about the poor or else doing the opposite of what republicans do. That's why i've been saying for years you guys need to vote on a 3rd party. En masse.

If you truely are a republican, how can you vote for such irreponsible people instead of voting on somebody else or even creating your own party that actually upholds republican values? Don't tell me you vote simply because your republican and they are called republicans. Else i'll call myself god and order you to vote a 3rd party :p

quote: In the past 2 years they've shown so little responsibility they actually got america's credit rating downgraded! that was as much a republican failure as it was a democratic failure.

It REALLY pisses me off that the media and the Democrats blamed the Republicans for that. First of all, we NEVER lost our credit rating until Obama and the Democrats came along and took power. Let's not forget that.

Secondly the S&P very clearly stated that unless the United States made, and I quote, "substantial" cuts in spending and debt, they WOULD downgrade our credit.

So what happened? Both sides came to the table and the Democrats, predictably, refused to cut enough spending to satisfy the S&P.

I don't know where you get your news, but how dare you blame the Republicans for the TRILLIONS Obama and the Democrats ran up leading up to our credit downgrade, when the Republicans did not even have the votes to fight it.

quote: Not that the general republican proposals make any sense. Taxes for EVERYBODY are the lowest they've been in 80+ years, and they refuse to raise taxes? You call that responsible?

How is giving more tax revenue to a Government that has proven, without a doubt, that it WILL mismanage that money fiscally responsible? Do you even know what our deficit is? It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to tax our way out of it.

You actually think people are stupid enough to follow your asinine twisted comment?

The Democrats agreed to spending cuts that included services for the poor, old and sick. The Republicans just out right refused to increase revenue (taxes) without any compromise. In Bizzaro world, you would be right: even though ONLY the Democrats tried to compromise, somehow you think the Republicans are the ones in good light.

You're one confused person. Tax policy was NOT on the table, the debt ceiling was. Hello? The Democrats actually wanted to be able to borrow MORE money! They only agreed to some cuts in exchange for an increase to an already astronomical debt ceiling. You call that compromise?!?

In what insane context does this somehow make the Republicans the evil party when they're trying to reign in this spending fever that the Obama administration has saddled us with?

You can spin it all you want, we lost our credit rating because of Democrats. Plain and simple!"The downgrade from S&P has been brewing for months. S&P's sovereign debt team, led by company veteran David T. Beers, had grown increasingly skeptical that Washington policy makers would make significant progress in reducing the deficit, given the tortured talks over raising the debt ceiling. In recent warnings, the company said Washington should strive to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, suggesting anything less would be insufficient. "

Debt ceiling being raised should not have even been a question. this is not new spending. It's only agreeing to pay for the bills that we ALREADY owe. It's not optional. Why would there even be a question as to whether or not we would pay our bills?

"It REALLY pisses me off that the media and the Democrats blamed the Republicans for that. First of all, we NEVER lost our credit rating until Obama and the Democrats came along and took power. Let's not forget that."

Using that logic we never got attacked until Bush came along. Republicans therefore are bad in our fight on terrorism. </badlogic>

quote: It REALLY pisses me off that the media and the Democrats blamed the Republicans for that. First of all, we NEVER lost our credit rating until Obama and the Democrats came along and took power. Let's not forget that.

As soon as you admit that 9/11 happened under W.

Like either event was born and completed under any one single administration. And you call this logic?

Bull. The republicans are no more "fiscally responsible" than anyone else. They are select in who they want to hand out the government cash to. They are also hypocrites. Just weeks ago, they all were on television talking about whenever you have tax cuts, they don't have to be paid for. The problem is, that's when they are talking about taxes for rich people. Now that Obama is trying to extend tax cuts for working people, they now state we will support it only if it's paid for. Really?